SIKANDER MAHTO versus TUNNA @ TUNNU MIAN @ TUNNA MIAN @ MOBIN ANSARI & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 27-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 369 
SIKANDER MAHTO 
v. 
TUNNA @ TUNNU MIAN @ TUNNA MIAN @ MOBIN 
ANSARI & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No; 511 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF 
CHILDREN ACT, 2000: 
A 
B 
c 
Claim of juvenility - Offences punishable u/ss 376 and 
3021201 /PC - Trial court holding the accused not a juvenile 
and the school certificate produced by him, as forged - High 
Court on the basis of medical report holding him as juvenile 0 
- Held: The evidence i.e. the record of the two schools 
produced by complainant and Principals of two schools before 
Supreme Court, established that accused was not a juvenile 
on the date of occurrence - Order of High Court set aside and 
that of trial court restored - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 and E 
3021201 - Evidence -Evidence led before Supreme Court in 
appeal. 
The respondent was prosecuted for commission of 
offences punishable u/s 376 and 302/201 IPC. He 
produced before the trial court a certificate issued by F 
Government Primary Urdu School showing him a juvenile 
on the date of occurrence. The trial court held the 
certificate as a forged one and sent the respondent for 
medical examination. The medical report indicated the 
accused to be of 17 years of age on the date of G 
occurrence. The trial court did not accept the claim of 
accused for juvenility. However, the High Court declared 
him to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence. 
369 
H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In the instant appeal, the complainant produced two 
certificates, one by the Government Primary Urdu School, 
showing that the accused was never admitted in that 
school, and another of a different Government Primary 
School showing the admission of the accused in the 
B school and his date of birth according to which the 
accused was of 21 years of age on the date of 
occurrence. The Court summoned Principals of both the 
Schools. They proved the two certificates respectively. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
The relevant records placed before this Court by the 
Principals of the two schools pursuant to the order dated 
0 
27.01.2014, indicate that the claim of the first respondent 
to be a juvenile remains unsubstantiated and, in fact, the 
rece>rds of the school where he was enrolled would 
indicate that his date of birth is 28.11.1985. Properly 
calculated with reference to the date of the alleged crime, 
E the first respondent was aged about 21 years on the 
relevant date and therefore he was not a juvenile. 
Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is set 
aside and that passed by the trial court restored. [para 9 
& 1 O] [373-0-F] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
G 
H 
No. 511 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2008 of the High 
Court of Patna Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2008. 
Mohit Kumar Shah, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan 
Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted. 
SIKANDER MAHTO v. TUNNA @ TUNNU MIAN @ 
371 
TUNNA MIAN @ MOBIN ANSARI [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
2. The first respondent Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna A 
Mian @ Mobin Ansari was committed to the Court of Sessions 
to face trial for offences under Sections 302/201 and 376 of 
the Indian .Penal Code. The first respondent filed an application 
claiming to be a juvenile and in support thereof he had enclosed 
a certificate issued by the Government Primary Urdu School, B 
Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block Mainatand wherein his date of 
birth was mentioned as 15.01.1991. The date of occurrence 
of the offences alleged in the present case is 16.11.2006. 
3. The learned Trial Court, for reasons not very clearly 
stated, recorded the finding that the certificate produced by the C 
first respondent was a forged one. Accordingly, the first 
respondent was sent for medical examination by a Board. 
Though the report of the Board was to the effect that the first 
respondent was 17 years of age, the learned Trial Court took 
the view that the said opinion would admit the possibility of a D 
variation of 2 years. Consequently, the learned Trial Court by 
order dated 24.12.2007 refused to accept the claim of juvenility 
raised on behalf of the first respondent. 
4. Aggrieved, the first respondent moved the Patna High E 
Court. By order dated 14.11.2008 the High Court interfered with 
the order of the learned Trial Court and allowed the a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.